Tax regulators and acquisition sponsors have long been embroiled in a cat and mouse game in the context of corporate inversions—cross-border transactions in which a U.S.-incorporated public corporation is “acquired” by a foreign entity, and the survivor’s locus of incorporation moved out of the United States. If done in compliance with applicable tax regulations, inversions typically allow American targets to avoid high U.S. corporate tax rates on worldwide income, and make use instead of far lower tax rates applied only to income generated within the survivor’s destination jurisdiction.
As tax inversions grew in popularity, federal authorities responded with a gauntlet … Read more
Some legal rights and obligations are so venerated and longstanding that they have become virtual absolutes—categorical imperatives that trump other less urgent considerations. But what happens when two such absolutes collide? This was a question that the US District Court of the Northern District of California had to wrestle with recently, in a case pitting directors’ fiduciary duties against their entrepreneurial rights to innovate.
The case concerned a medical device company’s complaint against its former director for breach of fiduciary duty. His offense? Secretly developing a new technology that competed with (and arguably improved upon) the corporation’s core product … Read more
The following post comes to us from Eric L. Talley, The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. It is based on a recent working paper, “Corporate Inversions and the Unbundling of Regulatory Competition,” which is available here.
Several prominent public corporations have recently embraced a noteworthy (and newsworthy) type of transaction known as a “tax inversion.” In a typical inversion, a US multinational corporation (MNC) merges with an operating foreign company. The entity that ultimately emerges from this transactional cocoon is invariably incorporated abroad, yet typically remains listed … Read more
The following post reproduces the text of a letter written by a group of corporate law professors at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in response to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ request for comments on the definition of “eligible organization” in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are all professors of law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, as well as specialists in the study and teaching of corporate law. This letter responds to the request published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2014 (the … Read more